Share this page!

Seth Abramson Profile picture
Twitter logo
10 Jan, 4 tweets, 2 min read
The "perks"? Isn't the main concern that Trump will continue to get classified national security briefings during his post-presidency unless he's impeached? It seems to me impeaching Trump is a national security issue, unless I'm missing something? @AshaRangappa_ @FrankFigliuzzi1
(PS) I mean "impeached and convicted," of course. (See tweet above.) @AshaRangappa_ @FrankFigliuzzi1 @joshscampbell @juliettekayyem
(PS2) To those saying the briefings are discretionary, even if they are, a) Trump will ask for them, b) he'll run in '24 if not impeached/convicted, c) the whole GOP will howl if Biden yanks them without the—wholly appropriate—cover of an impeachment/conviction. It'd be v. messy.
(PS3) Say he's not impeached and convicted, and in 2023 announces he's running for POTUS again—against Biden. He contacts the NSA or FBI CD or ODNI or the appropriate body and says he wants NatSec briefings as a former president. Biden saying "no" would become a political issue.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Seth Abramson

Seth Abramson Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SethAbramson

Seth Abramson Profile picture
12 Jan
January 6 was an insurrection ensconced in a traveling circus. Many at the Capitol were criminally trespassing, looting, desecrating and shoving, which makes it harder to focus on the far more dangerous, armed core of intruders—still large—which had treasonous mission objectives.
Most arrests so far have involved members of the traveling circus. They committed serious crimes, and will be punished. But I'm far more focused on those who planned to burn ballots, take hostages, steal sensitive equipment, and possibly kill the Vice President and House Speaker.
Media is focusing on the silliest figures in the insurrection—like a guy in a Viking helmet and the guy with Pelosi's lectern. My focus is on the men in tactical gear working with military precision who were armed and carrying zip ties and knew how to get where they needed to go.
Read 15 tweets
Seth Abramson Profile picture
12 Jan
Take the 7 *most-used words* in Trump's 1/6 incitement-to-insurrection speech—a speech in which he said he wanted all the people present to go to the Capitol because the country needed to be saved from fraudulent ballots—and you get:

WANT ALL PEOPLE GOING BECAUSE BALLOTS COUNTRY Image
(PS) The word cloud above includes *only* the words Trump used a dozen times or more in his January 6 speech, and excludes (as word clouds always do) articles and conjunctions.
(PS2) I just think it's interesting to consider the words the Trumpists would've had ringing in their ears the most pre-insurrection. We also see, of course, FIGHT, HELL, ELECTION, FRAUD, NEVER and other words that both focus the attention and are intended to produce raw emotion.
Read 4 tweets
Seth Abramson Profile picture
12 Jan
I've now watched almost all of the "Save America March" rally. A number of the speeches I've watched more than once. The number of times Team Trump yells at the mob of Trump fanatics, white supremacists, far-right militiamen and other insurrectionists to "FIGHT!" is *staggering*.
(PS) Many Americans haven't processed yet how strange it is for "FIGHT!" to be the key—clearly *coordinated*—theme of what pretends to be a protest. There was almost *no* talk at the Save America March rally about "making your voice heard." The refrain was, "FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!"
(PS2) Trump—only one of many January 6 speakers—used the term 20 times, along with violent rhetoric throughout his speech. The crowd repeatedly started chants that used (echoed) the word. Other speakers repeatedly used it. Don's mid-rally livestream featured the word prominently.
Read 4 tweets
Seth Abramson Profile picture
11 Jan
Without a doubt, one of the darker days in our history.

If it's revealed that the insurrection was not only plotted by Trump allies Biggs, Gosar, and Brooks, but that these men were in league with Trump and his team, it will be the darkest day *domestically* since the Civil War.
(PS) Ali Alexander, who's been photographed with Trump, says he worked with Gosar, Biggs and Brooks on the Capitol march as a means to dramatically delay certification of Biden's win—exactly what Trump lawyer Giuliani called Brooks' Alabama peer Tuberville to do mid-insurrection.
(PS2) There have been *five* major-media reports on Trump's reaction during the insurrection, which achieved the aim (delay) both he and his lawyer had sought to advance in phone calls during the assault: "pleased," "excited," "delighted," "giddy," and "borderline enthusiastic."
Read 6 tweets
Seth Abramson Profile picture
11 Jan
BREAKING NEWS: Official U.S. State Department Website Inexplicably Says Donald Trump's Presidency "Ended" at 7:49 PM Tonight (January 11); No Explanation Yet for Bizarre Website Edit Image
(PS) FWIW, I accessed the site at 3:02 PM ET, so the time in the screenshot above (7:49 PM) is not—as some are saying—UTC time. There may well be a computer glitch here, I don't know. Other screenshots have shown other times. But all are today, and State has not explained it yet.
(PS2) Regardless of time-stamp, it's not clear why the State Department would edit this presidency's official biography in *any* way that would say it ended on January 11—let alone do so on a day the House tried to get the Vice President to become Acting President. It is bizarre.
Read 18 tweets
Seth Abramson Profile picture
11 Jan
(1 of 2) I wrote a book about the January 2020 articles of impeachment, so I want to push back on some bad political/legal analysis.

The January 2020 articles were a *slam dunk*. It is the January 2021 article—in the way it was written—that is *very strong*, but not a slam dunk.
(2 of 2) The difference between the two impeachments is that the second so manifestly implicates national security that the standard of proof representatives/senators should apply is different. Under that lower standard of proof, voting for impeachment/conviction is a no-brainer.
(NOTE) What I think some political and legal analysts are doing is falsely saying that this article is stronger than the previous articles because the event *attached* to this impeachment was so dramatic and scary. But the "act" in the new article is *not* the riot, but a speech.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @SethAbramson has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @SethAbramson!

Read all threads by @SethAbramson